What does it mean to be an Atheist ( not a mocking thread)

[Willamena]

By definition no one is "aware of" an objective truth. Awareness is an individual, and thereby subjective phenomenon. From a human perspective, there is not "objective truth". There is only the unverifiable idea of an objective truth.

What do you mean, that we are unaware of truth? It's not like we can avoid experiencing truth.

 

[PureX]

What do you mean, that we are unaware of truth? It's not like we can avoid experiencing truth.

Sure, but the instant we experience it, it's becomes SUBJECT TO our unique personal mechanisms of perception and understanding. Thus, it becomes SUBJECTIVE. And subjective truth cannot by definition be an objective truth. In fact, objective truth us just a theory we invented based on the unknown, and unknowable.

 

[Willamena]

Sure, but the instant we experience it, it's becomes SUBJECT TO our unique personal mechanisms of perception and understanding. Thus, it becomes SUBJECTIVE. And subjective truth cannot by definition be an objective truth. In fact, objective truth us just a theory we invented based on the unknown, and unknowable.

No, things become subject to our unique personal mechanisms of perception. Then we conceive propositions about them, and determine if those propositions are truth (objective) or opinion (subjective). The instant we experience them, they are neither truth nor falsehood--truth and falsehood apply to propositions.

 

[PureX]

No, things become subject to our unique personal mechanisms of perception.

"Things" ARE a subjective personal perception. The fact that more than one of us agrees on what a "thing" is, doesn't change that.

Then we conceive propositions about them, and determine if those propositions are truth (objective) or opinion (subjective). The instant we experience them, they are neither truth nor falsehood--truth and falsehood apply to propositions.

Sorry, but it's ALL opinion. I call my opinion the "truth", and yours, an "opinion". But the truth is, it's all opinion.

 

[Willamena]

"Things" ARE a subjective personal perception. The fact that more than one of us agrees on what a "thing" is, doesn't change that.

I agree that the number of people who agree on what something is makes no difference to whether it is objective or subjective.

One person alone can experience things objectively.

Sorry, but it's ALL opinion. I call my opinion the "truth", and yours, an "opinion". But the truth is, it's all opinion.

Then you've a wide and vague definition of opinion. You ought to narrow it.

 

[Desert Snake]

There are more than three varieties:
17 Kinds of Atheism
Different Types of Atheism - dummies
https://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2019/arts_entertainment/seven-types-of-atheism

Link didnt go, then Im going to expect every atheist to give a detailed description of what atheism means when they say it

• you arent understanding that one word, if used as one word, either has an inherent meaning, or it doesnt.

So you can either provide a 'definition' for atheism, or you cant

•

So again, atheism to have an inherent meaning, as a word, cannot have more than one meaning, THAT ARE DIFFERENT MEANINGS.

 

[Desert Snake]

There are more than three varieties:
17 Kinds of Atheism
Different Types of Atheism - dummies
https://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2019/arts_entertainment/seven-types-of-atheism

Those arent varieties of atheism, its

Theism

Agnostic

Atheism


• there are many many types of theism, so what

 

[Desert Snake]

There are more than three varieties:
17 Kinds of Atheism
Different Types of Atheism - dummies
https://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2019/arts_entertainment/seven-types-of-atheism

Did you read that? One type of theism vs a theory of atheism definition, or something,

Im pretty sure you dont even know whats being argued. If you do understand, then your argument is abstract or nonsense

 

[Desert Snake]

Were talking about one word, here, not descriptions.

So, your definition doesn't work, figure out another, not going to waste more effort on this

 

[Desert Snake]

By definition no one is "aware of" an objective truth. Awareness is an individual, and thereby subjective phenomenon. From a human perspective, there is not "objective truth". There is only the unverifiable idea of an objective truth.

Personal truth being personal truth, a distinction there concerning belief, isn't inherent.

Belief can be evidenced, or not, and that concept can vary.

 

[Valjean]

Link didnt go, then Im going to expect every atheist to give a detailed description of what atheism means when they say it

I thought I did.

you arent understanding that one word, if used as one word, either has an inherent meaning, or it doesnt.
So you can either provide a 'definition' for atheism, or you cant
So again, atheism to have an inherent meaning, as a word, cannot have more than one meaning, THAT ARE DIFFERENT MEANINGS.

I agree. A definition is simple and short. A definition of a thing isn't a description or discussion, it's an essential feature that enables one to distinguish the thing from all other things.
This doesn't mean there can't be subdivisions within the definition. There are subdivisions of motor vehicle, house, and animal, but each has a unique feature common to the entire class. That's what a definition is.

What is the essential feature of all varieties of atheism? That would be the definition. See post #259.

 

[Valjean]

Those arent varieties of atheism, its
Theism
Agnostic
Atheism

there are many many types of theism, so what

So there is more than one "type" of atheism, as well; more than one subdivision of lack of belief. That doesn't mean there isn't a definitive feature they all share.

 

[Desert Snake]

So there is more than one "type" of atheism, as well; more than one subdivision of lack of belief. That doesn't mean there isn't a definitive feature they all share.

No, ''i dont know', isn't 'there aren't'.

It isn't even close.

So, you again have an vague meaning.
That's the problem with going outside of a 'belief', it doesn't work.

 

[Valjean]

Did you read that? One type of theism vs a theory of atheism definition, or something,

Im pretty sure you dont even know whats being argued. If you do understand, then your argument is abstract or nonsense

I know exactly what's being argued about, and my point is dog-simple. How are you not getting it? Do you know what a definition is?

Were talking about one word, here, not descriptions.

So, your definition doesn't work, figure out another, not going to waste more effort on this

I'm not describing anything. A description isn't a definition.
What "definition" are you taking issue with? Are you aware of my definition?

 

[Desert Snake]

So there is more than one "type" of atheism, as well; more than one subdivision of lack of belief. That doesn't mean there isn't a definitive feature they all share.

Then the 'i don't know ' loses meaning, as it becomes, 'i dont know therefore lack of [belief , claim, making no agnostic theism, which is fine, however you wont agree.

You don't like that we're talking about claims, basically

 

[Valjean]

No, ''i dont know', isn't 'there aren't'.

It isn't even close.

So, you again have an vague meaning.
That's the problem with going outside of a 'belief', it doesn't work.

I don't know what this means. Are you saying atheism is an assertion that there aren't gods? That just doesn't work.

I'm not being vague -- you're being obtuse. Do you understand what a definition is?

I define "atheism" as a lack of belief in god/s. Simple. It's the one thing that distinguishes atheism from all other things, thus, it's a proper definition. It leaves room for subdivisions by simply adding modifiers.

 

[Desert Snake]

You're trying to make beliefs and claims into non beliefs and claims, it just doesn't work.

Change the dictionary definitions, its never going to work, it's an unworkable concept.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't know what this means.
I'm not being vague -- you're being obtuse. Do you understand what a definition is?

I define "atheism" as a lack of belief in god/s. Simple. It's the one thing that distinguishes atheism from all other things, thus, it's a proper definition. It leaves room for subdivisions by simply adding modifiers.

The modifiers change the meaning, what arent you getting about this?

Is a 'agnostic theist', an atheist?

Just answer that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Your definition of agnostic changes when you combine it with your definition of theism.

You're trying to juggle a fruit basket instead of just having three main beliefs,

 

[Valjean]

Then the 'i don't know ' loses meaning, as it becomes, 'i dont know therefore lack of [belief , claim, making no agnostic theism, which is fine, however you wont agree.

You don't like that we're talking about claims, basically

I'm not the one defining atheism as "I don't know." I was making a social observation, here -- that most atheists, in my opinion, would be comfortable with "I don't know."

Me, I don't know -- and I don't believe. I take the reasonable position to withhold belief pending evidence.
QED.